alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

Vol. 158

WASHINGTON, MONDAY, JULY 30, 2012

No. 114
```
# C_2021481EN.01000901.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Proceedings brought by W.Ż.

(Case C-487/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rule of law - Effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence - Transfer without consent of a judge of an ordinary court - Action - Order of inadmissibility made by a judge of the Sąd Najwyższy (Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych) (Supreme Court (Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs), Poland) - Judge appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland on the basis of a resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary, despite a court decision ordering that the effects of that resolution be suspended pending a preliminary ruling of the Court - Judge not constituting an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law - Primacy of EU law - Possibility of finding such an order of inadmissibility to be null and void)

(2021/C 481/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: W.Ż.

Intervening parties: Prokurator Generalny zastępowany przez Prokuraturę Krajową, formerly Prokurator Prokuratury Krajowej Bożena Górecka, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seised of an application for recusal as an adjunct to an action by which a judge holding office in a court that may be called upon to interpret and apply EU law challenges a decision to transfer him without his consent, must — where such a consequence is essential in view of the procedural situation at issue in order to ensure the primacy of EU law — declare to be null and void an order by which a court, ruling at last instance and comprising a single judge, has dismissed that action, if it follows from all the conditions and circumstances in which the process of the appointment of that single judge took place that (i) that appointment took place in clear breach of fundamental rules which form an integral part of the establishment and functioning of the judicial system concerned, and (ii) the integrity of the outcome of that procedure is undermined, giving rise to reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the independence and impartiality of the judge concerned, with the result that that order may not be regarded as being made by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONNIE D. RAINEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00199-D-1; 5:12-cv-00778-D)

Submitted: December 20, 2013 Decided: January 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie D. Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Evan 

Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Shailika K. Shah, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie D. Rainey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Rainey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
October 21 2009
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18United States Code**

The undersigned, being the Principal Financial Officerof Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”), hereby certifies thatthe Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodJune 30, 2005, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained insuch Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will beretained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
| Date: August 5, 2005 |                            |
|----------------------|---------------------------------|
|                      | /s/ MARK A. MAKI                |
|                 | Mark A. Maki                    |
|                 | *Vice President, Finance*       |
|                 | *(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
# C_2020061EN.01002401.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-14/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Decoupled direct aid - Flat-rate financial correction - Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 12 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 - Obligation to state reasons - Assessment of the damage - Proportionality)

(2020/C 61/28)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 292, p. 61) in so far as it concerns the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the "Reform Act") and 14 C.F. R. Part 11, Eagle Sight Photographer LLC , seeks an exemption from Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs") detailed below for the following described Unmanned Aerial System called in this application the ME System, which includes an Unmanned Aircraft (UA) and ground station

-based equipment and crew : THE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (UA): lightweight (20 lb gross weight with all on

- board equipment), manufactured by DJI, Phantom , that includes the following equipment in flight; [¥] An on -board flight computer with GPS navigation and location ability that rece ives signals for flight controls from a ground

-based transmitter/controller;
on -board camera capable of capturing imagery in the form of full color, high definition still photos and video; A 5.8 GHz on

- board radio transmitter that transmits live video from the on

board camera plus all the flight data from the telemetry system described above; THE GROUD STATION

- BASED PART OF THE SYSTEM: A Pilot in Command (PIC) in operational control of a flight operation from beginning to end and who controls the UA wh ile in the air; 5.8 GHz radio transmitter/controller operated by the PIC to control the UA while in flight; ["?J A radio receiver receiving live video and flight data from the on

- board camera and computer projects it all together onto a screen for the PIC to view during flight; 

### t?.J A Visual Observer (VO) is a person who provides a second pair of eyes to visually track the UA while in flight.
**EXHIBIT
31.2**
 ****
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 I,
Richard Zaremba, certify that:
 
 I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MISONIX, INC.;
 
 Based on
my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;
 
 The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [*** Omitted pursuant to extended compliance
period] for the registrant and have:
 
 (a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;
 
 (b)
    [***
      Omitted pursuant to extended compliance period];
 
 (c)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (d)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and
 
 The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 
 (b)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 13, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Richard
  ZarembaRichard Zaremba
      Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
      Officer
      Treasurer and
Secretary
  -29-
BRS Stakeholder Meeting 2022

Agenda

TIME TOPIC PRESENTER

11:00 AM Welcome and Message 

from Chief of Staff for 

Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs

Jessica Mahalingappa, BRS Associate Deputy 

Administrator

Mike Watson, APHIS Associate Administrator

Katie Zenk, USDA Chief of Staff for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs

11:15 AM Agenda Overview Janice Strachan, Biotechnologist

Plant Evaluation Branch, Biotechnology Risk Analysis

Programs

11:20 AM Biotechnology/Bioeconomy 

Executive Order

Anastasia Bodnar, USDA Biotechnology Coordinator

11:30 AM Confirmation Requests Michael Stulberg, Senior Biological Scientist, Plants 

Branch, Biotechnology Risk Analysis Programs

11:40 AM Regulatory Status Reviews Suma Chakravarthy, Branch Chief, Plant Evaluation

Branch, Biotechnology Risk Analysis Programs 

Subray Hegde, Director, Biotechnology Risk Analysis 

Programs 

12:05 PM Q&A Session Janice Strachan, Biotechnologist

Plant Evaluation Branch, Biotechnology Risk Analysis

Programs

12:20 PM Break

12:30 PM Permits Update Deshui Zhang, Branch Chief, Plants Branch, 

Biotechnology Risk Analysis Programs

12:40 PM Microbes Update Martha Malapi, Branch Chief, Plant Pest & Protectants

Branch, Biotechnology Risk Analysis Programs 

12:50 PM Compliance & Inspections

Update 

Doug Grant, Director, Regulatory Operations Programs

Nathaniel Yates, Branch Chief, Compliance Evaluation 

and Enforcement Branch, Regulatory Operations 

Programs

1:05 PM International Engagement Jessica Mahalingappa, BRS Associate Deputy 

Administrator

1:15 PM Q&A Session Janice Strachan, Biotechnologist, Plant Evaluation

Branch, Biotechnology Risk Analysis Programs

1: 30 PM Final Remarks and 

Adjournment

Jessica Mahalingappa, BRS Associate Deputy 

Administrator
Dismiss and Opinion Filed February 5, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00691-CV 

ROBERT RAMIREZ, Appellant 

V. 

MARTIN SALAMANCA, DEADHEAD PROPANE GAS, INC., ET AL., Appellees 

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-10069 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated September 26, 2014, we 

notified appellant the time for filing his brief had expired. We directed appellant to file both his 

brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file a brief 

and an extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To 

date, appellant has not filed a brief, filed an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with 

the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b)(c). 

140691F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ROBERT RAMIREZ, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00691-CV V. 

MARTIN SALAMANCA, DEADHEAD 

PROPANE GAS, INC., ET AL., Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-10069. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees MARTIN SALAMANCA, DEADHEAD PROPANE 

GAS, INC., DEADHEAD MESQUITE, INC., GIBSON ENERGY, LLC, TAYLOR 

LOGISTICS, LLC, TAYLOR COMPANIES, LLC, TAYLOR PROPANE GAS, INC., TPG 

TRANSPORT, LLC AND TPG LEASING, LLC recover their costs of this appeal from 

appellant ROBERT RAMIREZ. 

Judgment entered February 5, 2015.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 6082

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, 
and I ask for its first reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6082) to officially replace, within the 60-day 
     Congressional review period under the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act, President Obama's Proposed Final Outer Continental 
     Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017) with a 
     congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and 
     natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy 
     development, job creation, and increased domestic energy 
     production to ensure a more secure energy future in the 
     United States, and for other purposes.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for a second reading, and in order to place the 
bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my 
own request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The bill will be read for 
a second time on the next legislative day.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LAHAINA ACQUISITIONS FOR THE PERIOD FROM
JULY 9, 1999 (DATE OF INCEPTION) TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          15,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          94,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,005,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,642,691
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    (1,389,431)
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,155,305)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,005,426
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               926,712
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,807,155
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               137,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,906
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,155,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,155,305)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.08)


</TABLE>
nerv-ex102_88.htm



 

EXHIBIT 10.2

 

AMENDED AND RESTATED NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN 

 

Approved: March 7, 2018

Effective: April 1, 2018

 

Effective as of April 1, 2018, each non-employee member of the board of directors (the “Board”) of Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (the “Company”) will receive an annual cash retainer of $35,000, the Lead Independent Director will receive an additional cash retainer of $10,000, and the Non-Employee Chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual cash retainer of $50,000. The chairpersons of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will receive additional annual cash retainers of $15,000, $12,000 and $8,000, respectively. Other members of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will receive additional annual cash retainers of $7,500, $6,000 and $4,000, respectively. Each newly elected non-employee director will also receive a one-time grant of an option to purchase 40,000 shares of the Company’s common stock promptly following election or appointment to the Board (the “Director Welcome Options”). The Director Welcome Options will vest monthly over three years, provided that the applicable non-employee director is, as of such vesting date, then a director of the Company. In addition, each non-employee director will be granted options to purchase 20,000 shares of the Company’s common stock per year (the “Annual Grants”). The Annual Grants will vest in equal quarterly installments over one year, provided that the applicable non-employee director is, as of such vesting date, then a director of the Company. 

 

Non-employee directors are also reimbursed for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board or of any committee thereof. 

 

The following is a summary of the terms of this Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan:

 

Cash


	
 
	
•
	
Annual retainer for Non-employee Chairman of the Board - $85,000





	
 
	
•
	
Annual retainer for Lead Independent Director - $45,000





	
 
	
•
	
Annual retainer per Board member (other than Chairman) - $35,000





	
 
	
•
	
Committee chair annual retainers:





	
 
	
o
	
$15,000 Audit





	
 
	
o
	
$12,000 Compensation





	
 
	
o
	
$ 8,000 Nominating and Governance





	
 
	
•
	
Committee member annual retainers:





	
 
	
o
	
$7,500 Audit





	
 
	
o
	
$6,000 Compensation





	
 
	
o
	
$4,000 Nominating and Governance





	
 
	
•
	
Retainers are paid on a quarterly basis.




 

Stock Options


	
 
	
•
	
Initial grant per Board member - 40,000 options vesting monthly over 3 years, provided that the applicable non-employee director is, as of such vesting date, then a director of the Company





	
 
	
•
	
Annual grant per Board member - 20,000 options vesting quarterly over 1 year, provided that the applicable non-employee director is, as of such vesting date, then a director of the Company
10541

#### State v. Ho

Dismissed